| People v Williams |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06975 [88 AD3d 463] |
| October 6, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Timothy Williams, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Yuval Simchi-Levi of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered October29, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in thethird degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencinghim, as a second felony offender whose prior conviction was a violent felony, to concurrent termsof 7½ years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's request for an agency charge. No reasonable view ofthe evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, suggests that he participated in the drug sale,but nevertheless did so only because he wished to do a favor for the undercover buyer, who was astranger. On the contrary, defendant's behavior toward the undercover buyer and otherprospective drug purchasers was clearly that of a steerer (see e.g. People v Smith, 52 AD3d 232 [2008], lv denied 11NY3d 741 [2008]). The court's charge on accessorial liability (see Penal Law §20.00) provided sufficient guidance to the jury regarding the issue of whether defendant wasintentionally aiding the person who actually sold the drugs (see People v Herring, 83NY2d 780, 783 [1994]), and there was no need for an additional instruction on the agencydefense.
Defendant did not provide a record sufficient to permit review of his claim that the courtfailed to disclose the contents of a jury note to defense counsel. The record, including therecorded colloquy on a similar note received a short time later, warrants an inference that in anunrecorded conversation, defense counsel was apprised of the contents of the note in question (see e.g. People v Fishon, 47 AD3d591 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 958 [2008]; compare People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852 [2009]). Accordingly, thecourt fulfilled its core responsibilities under People v O'Rama (78 NY2d 270, 277[1991]), and there was no mode of proceedings error.[*2]
The court lawfully directed a court officer to perform theministerial act of informing the jury that the court would not provide written instructions (see People v Jonson, 27 AD3d 289[2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 895 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse,Freedman and RomÁn, JJ.